Mothering and Smothering
When did "natural" become a synonym for "good" or "better"? Advertisers tell us that everything from our food to our skincare is better when it's used in its most natural state. But haven't the philosophers—Hobbes, Locke, and Kant (though not Rousseau)—tried hard to get us out of the state of nature? Is it good that tornadoes destroy everything in their path or that bigger animals prey on smaller? No—it's just natural. And yet the up-and-coming trend in parenting is to birth and raise children the way nature planned.
Mayim Bialik's first book is a salvo in this argument. The former child star of Blossom has blossomed into an observant Jew with a family, and Beyond the Sling, geared to a general, rather than Jewish, audience, presents Bialik's happy family as an example of the philosophy of "Attachment Parenting" at work. Bialik has ventured into this territory before; her blog on the Jewish parenting site Kveller.com offers readable, relatable accounts of contemporary family life and religious observance—albeit from the rather unique perspective of a famous vegan actress with a PhD in neuroscience.
Bialik insists that her parenting methods are feasible for the average parent, PhD or no PhD. And what exactly are they? "Attachment Parenting," a term coined by Dr. William Sears, is a parenting philosophy based on the principles of attachment theory—a theory of developmental psychology developed in the 1970s—with the aim of building a strong emotional bond between parent and child. Or, as Attachment Parenting International puts it, the goal is to "return to the instinctual parenting of our ancestors." Indeed, the first part of Bialik's book is called "Trust your instincts." She reassures us that what we need to be the best parents is already programmed in our DNA. This sounds easy, but in practice Attachment Parenting can be a lot of hard work, time, and money. It can include breastfeeding your baby on demand and letting the baby self-wean, holding your baby as much as is possible (otherwise known as "babywearing"), and sleeping with your baby until he or she wishes to leave the family bed.
It goes without saying that most parents seek to bond emotionally with their children. And it's comforting to think that if we just dig deep enough within ourselves, we'll all have the best possible guide: nature itself. While we can all agree that the goal of Attachment Parenting is lofty, the underlying justification of this parenting philosophy—that if only parents follow their intuition, or what is most natural, they will be better parents—is up for debate.
Maybe there is something wrong with my parental instinct, but if I always listened to my first instinct, and impulses, I'd always give in to my one-year-old. I'd still never let him cry at night, thereby preventing him from learning how to sleep on his own. I would stay with him all the time, never get a babysitter (which is a practice among some Attachment Parenting parents), even though I've been amazed to see how social, playful, and adventurous my child has become since he's had to learn to have fun without me sometimes. Ironically, in trying to become a more "natural" mother, I would become a stereotypically overprotective Jewish mother.
But Judaism from the start has had a more nuanced relationship to the idea of nature, our instincts and our impulses. Even in our most "natural" state, in the Garden of Eden, God commands Adam to rule over the earth (Genesis 1:28). This command puts us in charge of nature—meaning both the natural world and what we moderns call human nature. From there on in, God gives the Jews many commandments, a sure sign that we cannot just rely on nature, or our instincts (which may be good or bad) for a roadmap to life. When practitioners of Attachment Parenting stand behind the anti-circumcision movement, as many do, we see the stark contrast between its underlying principles and Judaism's.
A more "Jewish" philosophy is offered by parenting guru Wendy Mogel in her book on raising teens, The Blessing of a B Minus. Drawing on Jewish sources, Mogel preaches "compassionate detachment" that may at first feel painful and unnatural, but is ultimately best for the emerging adult. Drawing on the mystical idea of tzimtzum, parents, like God, must shrink themselves and relinquish control over their children for them to thrive. Take these practical examples from the book: when your teenage son asks for help on a school project he's left to complete at the last minute, your instinct will be to rush to his aid and fix it for him so he doesn't get a bad grade. But since he procrastinated, perhaps he needs the life lesson of discovering what happens when one doesn't complete one's work on time. Fight the impulse to make all his problems, big and small, disappear.
Or, when your daughter tells you excitedly about her new desire to skydive, don't just blurt out that she will kill you with worry. Overcome your instinct to respond and chastise before you open your mouth, and be glad she wants to include you in her life and has come to confide in you.
At the beginning of the Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides explains that being created in the image of God means humans share God's intellectual apprehension—in other words, His rational form. Our reason and intellect, then, make us human and humane. While our natural instincts may lurk deep inside ourselves, they don't always make us better people, let alone better parents.
"Raising Children To Care"
@Polly: I did not use either Attachment Parenting or Mayim Bialik as a straw man, nor was I claiming that Judaism offers only one approach to parenting. I don't attack Attachment Parenting or write that it doesn't work. I say only that it's not easy and that I find its relationship to nature simplistic. Attachment Parenting and parts of Bialik's book are but two examples in a much larger trend of justifying something by claiming it is "natural." My piece questions whether "natural" is always better, then looks at what one could call a Jewish approach to parenting, which wouldn't rely on "nature" as a justification for or by itself.
http://www.natural-jewish-parenting.net/members/njp/blog/VIEW/00000009/00000150/Smothering.html
Polly - I agree with the points you made about the "natural" aspect being less important than the scientific facts about mother-baby bonding, as well as the actual results attachment parenting is intended to create, i.e., a happy, loved, secure child, and ultimately a self-reliant, emotionally healthy, and appropriately "detached" adult.
I read your response to my article and I think you have misunderstood
it. I wish I could respond to your article on your blog, but I can't
seem to comment on it.
As I've mentioned above in these comments, my critique--which I stand
by--is that Attachment Parenting touts what is natural as a selling
point or a justification for itself. That doesn't mean it's the only
justification it has for itself or that I don't agree with its goals.
But this "natural is always better" line of reasoning is being used in
a lot of parenting literature and I wanted to draw attention to it and
question it.
This brings me to another point: You say that I think natural
parenting is new. I don't say that. I just say it's trendy now, which
it is.
You claim that I think Attachment Parenting means lax parenting that
gives in to our children. I didn't say that. I'm saying that if I only
listened to my instinct, I wouldn't be the best mother I could be,
which I know from experience. We co-slept with our baby until almost a
year. At that point, I was exhausted and consequently not parenting
him to the best of my abilities during the day. I realized that he was
still in our bed because I was afraid to say no to my child and to
ever hear him cry, rather than because it was in his best interest. As
you write, I had to find a balance, so we slowly transitioned him out
of our bed. Though my instinct told me to never let him cry, I needed
to fight that initial feeling so that he could learn to sleep on his
own and I could be a better parent. And, I'm happy to say, he is
thriving because of it!
Finally, you write that I don't distinguish between teenage and baby
parenting needs. Of course I do. I used Mogel's book as a contrast to
Bialik's not because I think all kids have the same parenting needs
but because of their contrasting approaches to nature. The point of
the article is to look at different philosophical responses to nature.
So, if you ever speak to Mayim Bialik, please tell her it's safe to
read my article. Though she writes on Facebook that I attack her, that
is certainly not the case. I just wish she'd read the article before
commenting on it.
Best,
Brauna
Comments are closed for this article.